Last year, after the Washington state legislature failed to pass a climate change bill championed by the governor, she took matters into her own hands by issuing an executive order directing the Departments of Ecology and Transportation to take action to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions and increase transportation and fuel-conservation options. At a press conference, Gov. Gregoire stressed that the executive order was intended to replace her failed legislation. “What we’ve done in the executive order is everything that was in that final bill—plus. Plus. There’s more in the executive order than what was in the final bill that did not pass the Legislature,” she told reporters.

It gives one pause to consider that Governor Gregoire should record herself talking for vetting purposes prior to making such admissions in public.

There are strong parallels in this case to what is happening on a national scale. President Obama’s drilling ban end-run around the law, for example, which has signaled his administration’s strategy to push through certain policies notwithstanding any legal restrictions. Or the passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill, which was rammed through in a suspect reconciliation process designed to bypass opposition. Or the arguably abusive use of signing statements by President Bush to tell agencies to ignore certain provisions of bills he disagreed with—1,200 times. President Obama intends to continue the practice, though he claims he will “act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.” I’m sure we’ll all sleep  better at night.

These and other abuses of power are modern-day examples of what economist Friedrich Hayek  identified as one of the great flaws of Democracy: the planners—with all of their good intentions and differing philosophies—can’t agree on a strategy, so collectivism gives way to tyranny, and the “strong man” takes over for the sake of getting something done.

For those of us who believe in the moral authority and economic advantages of liberty, deadlock among elected officials is generally a good thing. Hence, the urgency for strong push-back whenever a single leader usurps this kind of power for himself (or herself, in the case of Gov. Gregoire).

Michael Reitz, General Counsel for the Freedom Foundation, defended the importance of reigning in overreach by elected officials. “We have democratic process for a reason. The people of this state expect their lawmakers and elected officials to follow the law just like anyone else. The governor shouldn’t bypass the Legislature, regardless of her objectives.”

Amen to that.

Union leaders and politicians like Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., expressed shock, dismay and outrage at the company’s decision.

Either they are feigning surprise, or they’ve been comatose for the last decade. Your guess is as good as mine.

For years, politicians and labor leaders in Washington have ignored Boeing’s pleas to stay competitive. In 2002, Boeing CEO Alan Mulally told the State House Labor Committee that “the state of Washington is not competitive. . . . meaning it costs us more to operate [here].” He specifically pointed to Washington’s costly workers’ compensation system, which requires employers to purchase insurance coverage from the state or be on the hook to cover all claims costs themselves, rather than allowing them to choose from among competing private providers. As a result, Washington collects some of the highest premiums from employers and injured worker rates are well above the national average.

Boeing’s decision to place its second 787 line in South Carolina is too complicated, however, to be blamed on any single factor. In 2002, Mulally told lawmakers that Washington would have to become more competitive in taxes, unemployment insurance (UI) and regulations, among other factors, in order to keep the state attractive for Boeing.

Unfortunately, rather than engaging in an honest discussion about reform in these areas, legislators decided on a $3.2 billion “incentive package” that included some UI  and workers’ comp. reforms. Just a few years later, however, the legislature rescinded many of those changes. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation fought a lengthy battle to get the details of the state’s contract with Boeing. Once we finally got them (the unredacted portions), we discovered that Boeing could walk away from the deal at any point without penalties, whereas Washington was on the hook for pricey commitments until Boeing decided to cease building 787s.

This is one of many examples illustrating why one-on-one handouts between governments and businesses are bad for taxpayers, and in the long run, bad for the businesses themselves. Once the luster of the handout runs out, the business will scramble for another, and another, and so on. Better to build a strong business climate across-the-board, which is good for large and small companies alike.

Washington’s competitiveness, from a labor standpoint, is dismal. Other states should take note. South Carolina is a right-to-work state, meaning workers do not have to be members of a union as a condition of employment. Workers at the South Carolina plant where Boeing plans to locate its second 787 line recently voted to remove the union from the plant—an unlikely feat in Washington given our current labor laws and the history of organized labor in this state.

It would be difficult to overstate labor’s role in Boeing’s decision to forego expansion in Washington. In September 2008, we wrote that Boeing machinists would likely get much more than they had bargained for when they went on strike. “Given the machinists’ apparent disregard for economic realities and their totally unsustainable demands on their employer, Boeing would be wise to take its business elsewhere.” And so it is.

The 2008 strike was Boeing’s fourth in just two decades, and, at 57 days, the longest since the 69-day strike in 1995, which “poisoned morale for years.” According to the AP, the 2008 strike cost Boeing $100 million a day in deferred revenue and postponement of the 787. That kind of loss won’t be recouped for years.

Boeing’s final offer to the machinists prior to last year’s strike included a 14 percent monthly pension increase, a 2008 lump-sum bonus worth about $3,900 on average, a generous new incentive-pay plan and other perks. All told, Boeing estimated the package was worth an additional $34,000 in extra compensation to the machinists over three years.  

But it wasn’t enough.

When Boeing made the final decision to expand in South Carolina, the company was sending a loud signal to politicians and labor leaders in Washington that the company had had enough. Boeing’s vice president of human resources and one of the lead negotiators in the talks with the machinists told the Seattle Times that the company was “unwilling to indulge the kind of last-minute brinkmanship that has been typical in all recent contract negotiations with the [machinists].”

Unions and politicians alike would do well to remember that capital is mobile. Companies have a bottom line and they must respect it. Businesses will go where they must to operate more efficiently and increase their profit margins.

Politicians should take note. In the end, Boeing had the last laugh.

Illinois’s home health care workers have rejected an attempt to unionize providers under the auspices of SEIU and AFSCME. From CBS Chicago:

Illinois workers who are paid by the state to care for severely disabled people in their homes have voted down an effort to unionize.

More than 3,000 home health care workers mailed in their ballots this month; the ballots were counted on Monday and most of those workers voted not to join a union, according to Alan Symonette, an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association, which counted the vote.

The workers could have voted to join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees or the Service Employees International Union, but more than half of them voted to remain non-union.

Michelle Malkin has the vote totals:

SEIU – 293 votes
AFSCME – 220 votes
NO UNION – 1018 votes

In July, Governor Pat Quinn signed an executive order allowing home care providers to join unions and negotiate for higher pay.

Why the resounding “no” vote? Ask Pam Harris, a provider for her disabled son: “Union contracts talk about suspension, probation, training, days off? It’s ridiculous, to draw a line from a Union to my own efforts to provide a meaningful life for my child.”

As pointed out by Rachel Culbertson, labor policy analyst at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, taxpayers could have been stuck footing the bill for new, costly union middlemen and higher wages. Culbertson argued that the unionization of home health care workers would be “almost certain to raise costs in the midst of the state’s budget crisis.”